Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Everyone with a differing belief seems petty from my point of view. I'm sure my beliefs are petty from other PoVs too. I couldn't care less.

Well... here's the deal...

Most major retail outfits prohibit Pharmacist from NOT filling the prescription (there are numerous cases on this). The retail outfit isn't making the Rph work there... and can be fired by management if the Rph don't follow policy.

Some small mom-and-pop outfit DO refuse to fill certain prescriptions based on their beliefs...

Both outfits have a right to do this.

So, as consumers, we vote with our $$$ and feet here...

Easy solution!

 whembly wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Everyone with a differing belief seems petty from my point of view. I'm sure my beliefs are petty from other PoVs too. I couldn't care less.

Well... here's the deal...

Most major retail outfits prohibit Pharmacist from NOT filling the prescription (there are numerous cases on this). The retail outfit isn't making the Rph work there... and can be fired by management if the Rph don't follow policy.

Some small mom-and-pop outfit DO refuse to fill certain prescriptions based on their beliefs...

Both outfits have a right to do this.

So, as consumers, we vote with our $$$ and feet here...

Easy solution!

Indeed, problem solved.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Faulty logic, since nobody believes that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Healing

Healing is not attempted through drugs, surgery, or other conventional methods. The treatment is a specific form of prayer intended to spiritualize thought.

In Child Deaths, a Test for Christian Science:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/06/us/in-child-deaths-a-test-for-christian-science.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

David and Ginger Twitchell, a Christian Science couple from Massachusetts who relied on prayer rather than on doctors as their young son lay dying from an obstructed bowel, were convicted of involuntary manslaughter last month.

Seems like there DO exist some people who believe that it's their god's will and are up for withholding real treatment on their belief. I guess you could applaud them for sticking with their guns.

I personally don't agree with those methods, but you can't obstruct them. Its what they believe.

I'm not going to block someone who believes in animal sacrifice because I think its morally wrong. I just won't aid you for it.

Grey Templar wrote:Faulty logic, since nobody believes that.

Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientists both do not believe in using many aspects of modern medicine, and thus render your point invalid.

I call mine in and its mailed to me

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still, you shouldn't be forced to do something you believe is immoral.

Calling someone a whore is wrong, but I think refusal to fill the perscription is perfectly fine. Come back at another time with a different pharmacist.

Seriously? A pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription issued BECAUSE OF A MEDICAL CONDITION IS OKAY!?! Are you out of your mind?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Faulty logic, since nobody believes that.

Actually... there are. There was a big case a few years back; a family refused to allow their daughter to have medical care for leukemia because it was against their religious beliefs. I'm not sure I agree with their right to let their daughter die, but they have to live with the loss, not me.

Now if one of them were a pharmacist, now that 'faulty logic' comes into play full force, doesn't it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if I was, in the event of a request for a particular method I find immoral I would say "I won't fill this for you as it violates my personal beliefs. I'll gladly go get my coworker Joe who has no problem with it if you wish. We also have condoms in aisle 4 if you would like a cheaper alternative with no waiting."

And if you're working alone, as many do nowadays?

And how do condoms help the girl with the medical condition?

 Vulcan wrote:

And how do condoms help the girl with the medical condition?

Obviously god smote her with such a dreadful condition because she was such a whore.

/bitter

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if I was, in the event of a request for a particular method I find immoral I would say "I won't fill this for you as it violates my personal beliefs. I'll gladly go get my coworker Joe who has no problem with it if you wish. We also have condoms in aisle 4 if you would like a cheaper alternative with no waiting."

To which my reply would be along the lines of: "I don't give a gak about your beliefs, so why don't you just do your job instead of wasting my time? This is a pharmacy, I require pharmaceuticals. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you find employment elsewhere, as you are clearly unsuited to an environment in which you can realistically be expected to dispense a high volume of contraceptives. Y'know, since we're trading advice. "

 Albatross wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if I was, in the event of a request for a particular method I find immoral I would say "I won't fill this for you as it violates my personal beliefs. I'll gladly go get my coworker Joe who has no problem with it if you wish. We also have condoms in aisle 4 if you would like a cheaper alternative with no waiting."

To which my reply would be along the lines of: "I don't give a gak about your beliefs, so why don't you just do your job instead of wasting my time? This is a pharmacy, I require pharmaceuticals. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you find employment elsewhere, as you are clearly unsuited to an environment in which you can realistically be expected to dispense a high volume of contraceptives. Y'know, since we're trading advice. "

Well... if you didn't like that service, you could always go to a different Pharmacy.

Here in the states, they're everywhere. How prevalent are pharmacies in the UK?

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if I was, in the event of a request for a particular method I find immoral I would say "I won't fill this for you as it violates my personal beliefs. I'll gladly go get my coworker Joe who has no problem with it if you wish. We also have condoms in aisle 4 if you would like a cheaper alternative with no waiting."

To which my reply would be along the lines of: "I don't give a gak about your beliefs, so why don't you just do your job instead of wasting my time? This is a pharmacy, I require pharmaceuticals. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you find employment elsewhere, as you are clearly unsuited to an environment in which you can realistically be expected to dispense a high volume of contraceptives. Y'know, since we're trading advice. "

Well... if you didn't like that service, you could always go to a different Pharmacy.

Here in the states, they're everywhere. How prevalent are pharmacies in the UK?

Well, you have to travel at least 100 miles on horseback, in the middle of night, and there are bandits roaming the countryside. Plus, once you get there, the pharmacy is within the walls of a dark and forbidding castle on a hill, overshadowing a village of huddled and illiterate peasants. It's alright, though - once in every generation, the villagers send their bravest warrior out to scale the castle walls in search of aspirin. If (and it's a big 'if') he makes it back alive, he gets his pick of the wenches, and lengthy ballads are written in his name.



Yes, we have pharmacies everywhere here too, you patronising... That's beside the point. Why should someone's arbitrary moral code be allowed to inconvenience me purely because its dressed in religious rhetoric? That person has a job to do, which is to sell me the pharmaceuticals I require, within the letter of the law, and without fear or favour. They don't get to just decide they can't serve me because they don't like what I'm buying. feth that. Sell me what I asked for or get me the manager so I can lodge a formal complaint.

Also, by turning me away, they are hurting the proprietor's business, costing him vital revenue, which said proprietor can ill afford to lose. What gives a person the right to do such a thing? And based on what? The half-baked belief that preventing pregnancy is 'murder'? The arrogance of that is completely astounding and I'm surprised anyone could keep a straight face long enough to defend it. It's absolutely pathetic.

If you're a muslim and you work as a waiter in a restaraunt that serves alcohol, I don't care if it's against your religion, you'd best bring me my beer or else I'm doing everything I can to ensure you lose your job. It's your religion, not mine, so don't even think about letting it affect me in any way whatsoever. It's your problem. You work for a secular organisation, deal with it. If you can't deal with it, find a job that fits in with your religious requirements, because I'm certainly not going to.

 Albatross wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if I was, in the event of a request for a particular method I find immoral I would say "I won't fill this for you as it violates my personal beliefs. I'll gladly go get my coworker Joe who has no problem with it if you wish. We also have condoms in aisle 4 if you would like a cheaper alternative with no waiting."

To which my reply would be along the lines of: "I don't give a gak about your beliefs, so why don't you just do your job instead of wasting my time? This is a pharmacy, I require pharmaceuticals. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you find employment elsewhere, as you are clearly unsuited to an environment in which you can realistically be expected to dispense a high volume of contraceptives. Y'know, since we're trading advice. "

Well... if you didn't like that service, you could always go to a different Pharmacy.

Here in the states, they're everywhere. How prevalent are pharmacies in the UK?

Well, you have to travel at least 100 miles on horseback, in the middle of night, and there are bandits roaming the countryside. Plus, once you get there, the pharmacy is within the walls of a dark and forbidding castle on a hill, overshadowing a village of huddled and illiterate peasants. It's alright, though - once in every generation, the villagers send their bravest warrior out to scale the castle walls in search of aspirin. If (and it's a big 'if') he makes it back alive, he gets his pick of the wenches, and lengthy ballads are written in his name.



Yes, we have pharmacies everywhere here too, you patronising arse. That's beside the point. Why should someone's arbitrary moral code be allowed to inconvenience me purely because its dressed in religious rhetoric? That person has a job to do, which is to sell me the pharmaceuticals I require, within the letter of the law, and without fear or favour. They don't get to just decide they can't serve me because they don't like what I'm buying. feth that. Sell me what I asked for or get me the manager so I can lodge a formal complaint.

Also, by turning me away, they are hurting the proprietor's business, costing him vital revenue, which said proprietor can ill afford to lose. What gives a person the right to do such a thing? And based on what? The half-baked belief that preventing pregnancy is 'murder'? The arrogance of that is completely astounding and I'm surprised anyone could keep a straight face long enough to defend it. It's absolutely pathetic.

If you're a muslim and you work as a waiter in a restaraunt that serves alcohol, I don't care if it's against your religion, you'd best bring me my beer or else I'm doing everything I can to ensure you lose your job. It's your religion, not mine, so don't even think about letting it affect me in any way whatsoever. It's your problem. You work for a secular organisation, deal with it. If you can't deal with it, find a job that fits in with your religious requirements, because I'm certainly not going to.

Spoiler'd for brevity.

Here here, extremely well said and presented. Exalted.

As someone that recently brought up a Family Practice clinic on an EMR--and worked closely with two local pharmacies that also came up with Surescripts/eRx during the same time period--you have my sympathy.

I truly believe that as more and more clinics/pharmacies come up on eRx--most of the insurance/demographic nonsense will be alleviated. For example, our EMR has the capability to pull down prescription history based on a patient's formulary. Only downside is that they need to sign a consent to do so and it only pulls down information from eRx participating pharmacies----so with your true narcotic seekers, it's not as efficient. Still, it should get better.

Or at least, I keep telling the physicians that....

That's one nice thing about our system. We can tell anything prescribed by any physician in our system nationwide and see when everything was filled last.

Oklahoma also has a phone number that pharmacists and physicians can call to find out how many narcs have been filled for certain people, but it depends on pharmacies actually sending the data in.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Everyone with a differing belief seems petty from my point of view. I'm sure my beliefs are petty from other PoVs too. I couldn't care less.

This is just terrible reasoning. Are you trolling deliberately?

Albatross wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if I was, in the event of a request for a particular method I find immoral I would say "I won't fill this for you as it violates my personal beliefs. I'll gladly go get my coworker Joe who has no problem with it if you wish. We also have condoms in aisle 4 if you would like a cheaper alternative with no waiting."

To which my reply would be along the lines of: "I don't give a gak about your beliefs, so why don't you just do your job instead of wasting my time? This is a pharmacy, I require pharmaceuticals. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you find employment elsewhere, as you are clearly unsuited to an environment in which you can realistically be expected to dispense a high volume of contraceptives. Y'know, since we're trading advice. "

Well... if you didn't like that service, you could always go to a different Pharmacy.

Here in the states, they're everywhere. How prevalent are pharmacies in the UK?

Well, you have to travel at least 100 miles on horseback, in the middle of night, and there are bandits roaming the countryside. Plus, once you get there, the pharmacy is within the walls of a dark and forbidding castle on a hill, overshadowing a village of huddled and illiterate peasants. It's alright, though - once in every generation, the villagers send their bravest warrior out to scale the castle walls in search of aspirin. If (and it's a big 'if') he makes it back alive, he gets his pick of the wenches, and lengthy ballads are written in his name.



Yes, we have pharmacies everywhere here too, you patronising... That's beside the point. Why should someone's arbitrary moral code be allowed to inconvenience me purely because its dressed in religious rhetoric? That person has a job to do, which is to sell me the pharmaceuticals I require, within the letter of the law, and without fear or favour. They don't get to just decide they can't serve me because they don't like what I'm buying. feth that. Sell me what I asked for or get me the manager so I can lodge a formal complaint.

Also, by turning me away, they are hurting the proprietor's business, costing him vital revenue, which said proprietor can ill afford to lose. What gives a person the right to do such a thing? And based on what? The half-baked belief that preventing pregnancy is 'murder'? The arrogance of that is completely astounding and I'm surprised anyone could keep a straight face long enough to defend it. It's absolutely pathetic.

If you're a muslim and you work as a waiter in a restaraunt that serves alcohol, I don't care if it's against your religion, you'd best bring me my beer or else I'm doing everything I can to ensure you lose your job. It's your religion, not mine, so don't even think about letting it affect me in any way whatsoever. It's your problem. You work for a secular organisation, deal with it. If you can't deal with it, find a job that fits in with your religious requirements, because I'm certainly not going to.

Holy hand grenades, Batman! I think this is the first time I've actually agreed 100% with Albatross.

 kronk wrote:
@ Ouze: Did anything happen to the pharmacist that treated that mother like crap?

Sadly, I wouldn't know, the followups were not my purview. They had an excellent system that logs how often you view a patients contacts records, so I couldn't peek without risking my (lousy) job. I filed a report and escalated it, but that's the end of it for me. If the pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions they could theoretically be no longer allowed to fill prescriptions for our company, but I strongly suspect that would actually be a blessing in disguise since my company was apparently a huge pain in the ass to deal with in the first place.

The only outlier in this was the "being called a whore" part. And again, although I have no no reason not to believe it, I said allegedly because I wasn't there; as Auston points out I really thought that would have had some consequences over the not filling of the prescription for moral grounds. The latter thing though, the not filling the RX's for "moral" grounds, was super, super common. At least 2 or 3 times a week I'd get a call from a woman wanting to know why, or crying because they lived in a rural area and the closest other pharmacy is a hundred miles away, and so on.

Congratulations on Grey Templar for agreeing with this odious practice, by the way; Always nice to see at least one right minded citizen who recognizes his duty to his private religious beliefs supersecedes what a doctor prescribed someone else. I suggest you write these guys; as you'll find they share similar beliefs and you'd go far.

Do pharmacists not have to take something similar to the Hippocratic oath, if so how can they not lose there license for refusing to medicate someone

youbedead wrote:Do pharmacists not have to take something similar to the Hippocratic oath, if so how can they not lose there license for refusing to medicate someone

I believe this has been contested in the US. In Canada, you'd be out of work pretty quick.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, problem solved.

Not particularly if you live in a small town and the local pharmacy/doctor decides they don't want to give you certain products or services. No version of the Hippocratic oath makes mention of refusing to give treatment because of something your imaginary friend apparently says (or rather, what people have interpreted them has having said). And given that around 98% of American medical students swear some version of this oath upon graduation you have to wonder what limb they are standing on when they make these kinds of totally inappropriate decisions.

 azazel the cat wrote:

youbedead wrote:Do pharmacists not have to take something similar to the Hippocratic oath, if so how can they not lose there license for refusing to medicate someone

I believe this has been contested in the US. In Canada, you'd be out of work pretty quick.

No...there's no Hippocratic oaths for Rph'es... there should be though since in the inpatient hospitals, Rph'es are getting more & more involved in patient care. At one of our hospitals, we have Rph'es on the floor interviewing each patient for Allergies and being there for questions regarding medications/treatments... rather than being cacoon'ed in pharmacy all day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, problem solved.

Not particularly if you live in a small town and the local pharmacy/doctor decides they don't want to give you certain products or services. No version of the Hippocratic oath makes mention of refusing to give treatment because of something your imaginary friend apparently says (or rather, what people have interpreted them has having said). And given that around 98% of American medical students swear some version of this oath upon graduation you have to wonder what limb they are standing on when they make these kinds of totally inappropriate decisions.

They're not medical students... they're Pharmacist.

There's a major shortages of licensed Pharmacist, that I would think (I'm guessing here) that the institution would loath to fire a Rph over this... and I would think that the institution would account for this by having it filled by another Rph.

And honestly, in the grand scheme of things, this doesn't happen often.

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

youbedead wrote:Do pharmacists not have to take something similar to the Hippocratic oath, if so how can they not lose there license for refusing to medicate someone

I believe this has been contested in the US. In Canada, you'd be out of work pretty quick.

No...there's no Hippocratic oaths for Rph'es... there should be though since in the inpatient hospitals, Rph'es are getting more & more involved in patient care. At one of our hospitals, we have Rph'es on the floor interviewing each patient for Allergies and being there for questions regarding medications/treatments... rather than being cacoon'ed in pharmacy all day.

We are coming close to the end of the Rph, and as the PharmD becomes the norm I really think things will go towards what they have been trying in Washington. Where Pharmacists can hold a PA as well. It's a logical evolution of the trade in today's world.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

youbedead wrote:Do pharmacists not have to take something similar to the Hippocratic oath, if so how can they not lose there license for refusing to medicate someone

I believe this has been contested in the US. In Canada, you'd be out of work pretty quick.

No...there's no Hippocratic oaths for Rph'es... there should be though since in the inpatient hospitals, Rph'es are getting more & more involved in patient care. At one of our hospitals, we have Rph'es on the floor interviewing each patient for Allergies and being there for questions regarding medications/treatments... rather than being cacoon'ed in pharmacy all day.

We are coming close to the end of the Rph, and as the PharmD becomes the norm I really think things will go towards what they have been trying in Washington. Where Pharmacists can hold a PA as well. It's a logical evolution of the trade in today's world.

Yeah... I work in IT, but I've come really close to see if I should go to Pharmacy school. But, that 5-6 years of school... again...

But... a PharmD and an experienced IT professional? That's hot... You'd have you pick of location/projects/high salary.

It would be interesting if this principle of working according to conscience should be extended to other fields of endeavour.

For example, a muslim engineer might refuse to design a part that might be used to build a machine that might be used to purify water that might be used to make potter's clay that might be used to make a cup that might be used to serve coffee to a software programmer who might help design an algorithm that might be used to design a part that might be used in an agricultural machine that might be used to harvest grapes that might be used to make wine.

 whembly wrote:
They're not medical students... they're Pharmacist.

http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/pharmacist_oath_and_code_of_ethics/

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
They're not medical students... they're Pharmacist.

http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/pharmacist_oath_and_code_of_ethics/

Interesting... I've never seen that before (and I worked with Rph for 10yrs).

Actually, each pharmacy departments have their own "mission statement".

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still, you shouldn't be forced to do something you believe is immoral.

Calling someone a whore is wrong, but I think refusal to fill the perscription is perfectly fine. Come back at another time with a different pharmacist.

So you're saying I should be able to refuse insulin to a black person if I believe it is immoral to help them live?

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still, you shouldn't be forced to do something you believe is immoral.

Calling someone a whore is wrong, but I think refusal to fill the perscription is perfectly fine. Come back at another time with a different pharmacist.

So you're saying I should be able to refuse insulin to a black person if I believe it is immoral to help them live?

Um...what? Why would you ever refuse someone insulin (irregardless if they're black)...

"Ehlo, thiz iz pegghie"

 Ouze wrote:

I frequently got calls from women who were treated like garbage for trying to get their birth control filled, at least 2 or so a week for this. One woman called me crying because her 15 year old daughter had gotten an RX for birth control to control her endometriosis, and the pharmacist had not only refused to fill it, but (allegedly) called her a whore and threw her out of the store when she pushed back on it. I don't mean to threadjack, but my experience working here made me realize that there are some sections of this country where the religious element is completely out of fething control (no, I'm not lumping in the vastly larger percentage of Christians who know it's not their place to judge so don't pretend I did please).

Was it CVS by any chance? I ran into that problem when I went on a road-trip with a now ex who forgot to refill her BC before leaving one part of Minnesota for another. She had refilled he BC at the local CVS regularly, but getting to the destination was denied aggressively. The denials entailed "You really shouldn't need these." and "Well, I guess I might be able to find some in the back...(10 minutes during which we can hear him gossiping)...nope, nothing in stock." We ended up going to a local Planned Parenthood, but mother of God was I pissed.

 whembly wrote:

Um...what? Why would you ever refuse someone insulin (irregardless if they're black)...

"Ehlo, thiz iz pegghie"

The initial point made was that people should not be made to go against their beliefs. If I believe that helping support the lives of black people is immoral, that would mean forcing me to given insulin to a black person forces me to go against me beliefs. It should also be said that my response to grey templar required several revisions and a shot to avoid a permaban.

AH... gotcha dude.

Carry on then.